The passage of California Proposition 1A (2008) set in motion a complete reconstruction of the railroad between San Jose and San Francisco. This blog exists to discuss compatibility between HSR and Caltrain, integration issues, and the impact on adjoining communities.

18 February 2017

The Big Picture

With the delay of a federal grant long planned for Caltrain modernization, there is fear and uncertainty on the peninsula rail corridor. Everything about the project is being put back into question by voices on all sides of the issue. In times like these, it helps to step back and look at the big picture. The big picture has not changed since 2008, and there is a logical flow to it that remains true regardless of the funding situation.

A requirement flow diagram shows a hierarchy of requirements, things that are needed or wanted, and how they relate to each other. The way to read it is to follow along the connectors between boxes. When reading downward, the next box down answers HOW the previous box is to be achieved. When reading upward, the next box up answers WHY the next box is necessary. A simple and intuitive example is provided at right.

Next, we move on to a more complicated diagram that represents the blended system in general, including the Caltrain modernization project. The derived attributes at the ends of the requirement tree are highlighted in green. If you delete any of the green boxes, all of the boxes that depend on it above are negatively affected.

For example, if you delete level boarding, then you can't reduce station dwell times, which means you can't increase Caltrain average speeds enough to allow operating peak hour traffic, which in turn means the blended system won't work well, and HSR may need to build four tracks all the way.

For another example, if you delete train doors that work at the same height as HSR, then Caltrain can't share platforms with HSR, which means bigger stations and limited capacity at SF Transbay, so Caltrain won't be able to run all trains into the downtown core, which in turn will hurt Caltrain ridership and increase congestion on highway 101 and I-280.

(Click to expand to full size)

This is a useful way to think about the problem, and reveals three important ideas: (1) the mere lack of funding won't make the problem change or go away, (2) the technical approach pursued by Caltrain is sound, if only partially effective, and (3) hacking away the entire HSR side of the diagram doesn't fundamentally change the solution ultimately needed for Caltrain modernization.

26 comments:

Given the Trump FTA decision to indefinitely block the last piece of funding essential to fully and finally give the Caltrain electrification and EMU train-building contractors their final notice to proceed based the GOP's hatred and fear of HSR and the slightest chance it might succeed and be viewed as successful someday, it might be nice to clearly mark the 6 boxes (by my count, anyway) that fall away if HSR were to disappear. This would illustrate how essentially all of Caltrain electrification is justified and can and does stand on its own merits independent of HSR.

Let's make this exercise a lot simpler. Which boxes help BART extend down the Peninsula, and which don't -- because that will inform you as to what will get funded and what won't. Grade separations, parking garages, a BART extension to Santa Clara all help build out BART-around-the-Bay. Electrification and buying new trainsets doesn't.

Can't believe Caltrain advocates allowed themselves to get played like this again. SAD!

Isn't such a high level of despair and paranoia a bit premature? When the entire Democratic congressional delegation, most state and local politicians, MTC, BAC, SVLG, etc. all support the project, it isn't a sign that BART is about to move in for the kill.

Sadly BART(and tacitly MTC)are always crouching and salivating. The Peninsula would be such a large kill for BART it could chew on it for decades.

But the real political issue is CAHSR not Caltrain electrification. Has Interior already ok'd PB's test drilling in the Angeles National Forest? If that were denied it would be very enlightening, as to who is really lling the strings, to see who screams. If most are happy with that it means the Tehachapi mountain crossing would be built slower. That a station in Tehachapi was accepted as a possibility in one of their outreach meetings could mean the 2:40 thing has been indeed quietly forgotten. I mean the courts don't care about it.

Clem,Let's just say I've seen this bad movie before and know how it turns out.

It is not at all unusual for a megaproject to have an unexpected shortfall ($600 million is relatively small compared to some blowouts). By now I would have at least expected Heminger to put up some rescue financing, or to hear of some Plan B to keep the project going. But so far it has just been crickets. That is not reassuring, though I guess we have to wait a few weeks to know for sure.

It seems like the green boxes are equivalent to the "Corridor To Do List" at the right of each page (desktop view). If so, it would hint at some topics for future articles or boxes to add to the diagram.

I appreciate your writing and understand how much time it takes to make a diagram like that.

Well worth watching: this excellent and highly informative new documentary premiered tonight on KQED TV. It will air again in the next few days on other PBS stations … check your local listings or stream it. Highly applicable to Caltrain and CBOSS (Caltrain’s ill-fated and ill-advised attempt to invent its own PTC solution), CEM (crash energy management) railcar design and HSR.

65+ CEOs and Mayors are heading to DC to lobby for electrification organized by the Silicon Valley Leadership. This is either an incredibly devious ruse designed to confuse the rest of us and help fund the airline and hospitality industry or they are working hard to save the project https://twitter.com/SVLeadershipGrp/status/835209210749034496

Is it expecting too much, to look for internal consistency in your blog posts?

On the one hand, your post some years ago critiqued the CHSRA report signed off by Frank Vacca, claiming that CHSRA could make a SF-SJ run in 30 minutes -- provided the run is in the SF-to-SJ direction, and they don';t actually _stop_ (thus defeating Prop 1A's requirement for "service time").

On the other hand, you argue -- very persuasively -- for NOT urinating-away money to build Cahill St InterGalactic Elevated HSR Station. Saving a billion dollars or so. (Yes, Virginia, using prime downtown real-estate to park trains for hours every day is a WASTE OF RESOURCES which will add BILLIONS OF DOLLARS to the cost of CA HSR.)

But, eliminating the elevated Cahill St boondoggle, also eliminates the elevated approach into said Diridon-Intergalactic station. Which means the time-savings in the CHSRA run-time simulation also disappear . In other words, advocating for eliminating Cahill-St-InterGalactic means invalidating CHSRA's Feb 2013 memo.

Never mind that the Feb 2013 memo's simulation relied on Caltrain "getting out of the way" and giving HSR a clear run. As we all know, CHSRA since stipulated that, in fact, Caltrain owns dispatch-and-scheduling on Caltrain tracks; Caltrain does not have to defer to HSR.

Put all those together, and it's very clear that spending Prop 1A dollars on "CalMod" will NOT deliver a 30 minute SF/SJ service time ("service" means passengers boarding at one end and alighting at the other). That's not just a fact, it's also something you have argued yourself. AFAIK the SF/SJ service-time requirement, vs. CHSRA funding for CalMod, has not been tried in court.

So I think the real concern here isn't just the Trump administration killing FRA funding ((though that's a real worry.) Be prepared for actions with even worse consequences for CalMod.

Hi Clem,the 280 approach might not be, but the approach to Cahill St station from northward _is_ included. hm, see your Feb 2013 post, . The blue "note elevated approach" annotation at the very right of the run-time chart; and "Oh, those pesky assumptions", #7.

CalMod - or whatever the project is called this quater -- isn't proposing to do that. So the SF-SJ service time cannot hit 30 min.Therefore the Prop 1A funds cannot be spent on it.Unless you deploy "alternative facts" ... :)

Oddly enough, searching Caltrain's site for CBOSS yields nothing about the entirely predicatble, and predicted, of the CBOSS project. The most-recent hit for CBOSS is dated Feb 28. One has to search for (eg) "Parsons" to find the contract-termination press release.